Just got back from the shops, and found the Karajan 9th ('82 live recording). I must say that I really like it quite a bit. My reference (overall) is the '98 Boulez recording with the CSO, but I like Boulez in general.
Karajan, I think, really understood the 9th. The haunting loss that I see in all of Mahler I see thrown into sharp relief here. Boulez is precise, but I don't think he quite has the same sweetly sad overarching vision that Karajan had. Compared to Karajan, Boulez hammers through the Adagio. I won't say that he's too fast, but there is something to be said for a slower interpretation. Boulez brings a postmodern (which is to say post-Romantic) eye to Mahler that I like; however, I don't know if that vision is as suited to the 9th as Karajan's high Romanticism. (Whether or not Mahler was a Romantic, Karajan seemed to treat him like he was.) However, 16 years make quite a difference in digital recording quality, and the Boulez outing edges the Karajan. The orchestras are both very good. I am partial to the Berliners, but the CSO manages to do wonderfully, as well.

I will keep my Boulez as a reference disc. It is as precise and well-recorded as I think one could want. However, for the best interpretation that I have heard to date, I think Karajan walks off with this prize...until I go back to the shops.

Just got back from the shops, and found the Karajan 9th ('82 live recording). I must say that I really like it quite a bit. My reference (overall) is the '98 Boulez recording with the CSO, but I like Boulez in general.
Karajan, I think, really understood the 9th. The haunting loss that I see in all of Mahler I see thrown into sharp relief here. Boulez is precise, but I don't think he quite has the same sweetly sad overarching vision that Karajan had. Compared to Karajan, Boulez hammers through the Adagio. I won't say that he's too fast, but there is something to be said for a slower interpretation. Boulez brings a postmodern (which is to say post-Romantic) eye to Mahler that I like; however, I don't know if that vision is as suited to the 9th as Karajan's high Romanticism. (Whether or not Mahler was a Romantic, Karajan seemed to treat him like he was.) However, 16 years make quite a difference in digital recording quality, and the Boulez outing edges the Karajan. The orchestras are both very good. I am partial to the Berliners, but the CSO manages to do wonderfully, as well.

I will keep my Boulez as a reference disc. It is as precise and well-recorded as I think one could want. However, for the best interpretation that I have heard to date, I think Karajan walks off with this prize...until I go back to the shops.

I concur exactly. I own these recordings as well and there is something about the Karajan recording. Karajan's recording is the first I have heard where I really seem to be impressed by the middle movements. In other recordings, I found them interesting, but they were more or less filling space between the outer two giants. I agree with you about the sound quality of the CSO recording, but the live Karajan recording comes close.

I concur exactly. I own these recordings as well and there is something about the Karajan recording. Karajan's recording is the first I have heard where I really seem to be impressed by the middle movements. In other recordings, I found them interesting, but they were more or less filling space between the outer two giants. I agree with you about the sound quality of the CSO recording, but the live Karajan recording comes close.

By the way PSmith08, are you in Bloomington?

cheers,
dshea

I am from a town south of Bloomington, but close enough that I spent (spend) a lot of time in Bloomington when I can. I go to school in Crawfordsville, IN, which is about half an hour south of Lafayette.

In general, I like Boulez and the certain sensibility he brings to his work (I don't think that anyone will ever top his '96 Bruckner 4--that disc beats Furtwangler's '54 outing with the VPO). He always seems to bring his A game to the score; however, the score sometimes needs a conductor that is willing to sacrifice a touch of precision for deep feeling. Boulez brings feeling enough, but Karajan creates a perfect environment for the score to flourish and off-load its brillance.

The Fried is fascinating if you can stand the recorded sound from 1923, with a reduced orchestra standing in front of a recording horn, trying desperately to be heard. I have the Pearl release, but I have heard that the Naxos issue slightly improves the sound (which in this case would be from "godawful" to "woeful"). I think this recording is closer to Mahler than Walter or Klemperer. Over the years, Walter's approach softened and became autumnal and radiant, whereas Klemperer's approach grew harder and became fiery and granitic. Fried unites those interpretive extremes, and also proves that the numerous tempo changes in the Mahler scores were meant to be observed (both Walter and Klemp blow past a lot of them). Fried likes fast fasts and slow slows, and he properly keeps the tempo flowing in the Scherzo ("In ruhig fliessender Bewegung") instead of racing. Despite the craptacular sound, the reduced orchestral forces, the lack of any bass, the overabundance of surface noise; despite all of this, this recording caught a dim, rough, shadowy picture of a truly visionary performance. I just wish Fried had lived longer (there is a rumor he was "removed" for political reasons by the KGB). A later, better recording could have made his insight much more listenable. As it is, it can be tough to listen to the Fried recording, but it's worth it, because it is a real performance featuring an interpretation that under the right conditions must have been far greater than either Walter or Klemperer. That's why whenever anyone asks whether Walter or Klemperer was the truer disciple of Mahler, I answer, "Fried".

The Fried is fascinating if you can stand the recorded sound from 1923, with a reduced orchestra standing in front of a recording horn, trying desperately to be heard. I have the Pearl release, but I have heard that the Naxos issue slightly improves the sound (which in this case would be from "godawful" to "woeful"). I think this recording is closer to Mahler than Walter or Klemperer. Over the years, Walter's approach softened and became autumnal and radiant, whereas Klemperer's approach grew harder and became fiery and granitic. Fried unites those interpretive extremes, and also proves that the numerous tempo changes in the Mahler scores were meant to be observed (both Walter and Klemp blow past a lot of them). Fried likes fast fasts and slow slows, and he properly keeps the tempo flowing in the Scherzo ("In ruhig fliessender Bewegung") instead of racing. Despite the craptacular sound, the reduced orchestral forces, the lack of any bass, the overabundance of surface noise; despite all of this, this recording caught a dim, rough, shadowy picture of a truly visionary performance. I just wish Fried had lived longer (there is a rumor he was "removed" for political reasons by the KGB). A later, better recording could have made his insight much more listenable. As it is, it can be tough to listen to the Fried recording, but it's worth it, because it is a real performance featuring an interpretation that under the right conditions must have been far greater than either Walter or Klemperer. That's why whenever anyone asks whether Walter or Klemperer was the truer disciple of Mahler, I answer, "Fried".

Thanks - I'll pick it up and give it a listen. For the price, why not? I like to support Naxos' historical efforts.

i just picked up mahler 8 with Atlanta Symphony orchestra and Chorus w/ Robert Shaw (on Telarc.) Anyone hear of it? i havnt listened yet, but the opening sounds....fine....thats it. not earth shattering or anything...just fine!

Mahlerites.....
I have ordered some very hard to find Mahler recordings from 1960s-1970s never mentioned here before (even by Gracky ) should arrive soon......sorry can't let the cat out of the bag yet, but could be great find.

Very good sounding stereo studio performances from 1960's & 1970's that have been newly remastered in 2004. These are also available as individual symphonies, either way expensive proposition and very limited availability.
Some perfromances have brightly lit sound similar to DG Originals series, but great detail revealed with deep view into soundstage.

Style is extrovert and enhanced dramatic contrast and high energy, sounds very bold/exciting compared to most modern sets mentioned here which sound smooth and restrained in comparison, timings are very fast if compared to many modern releases, for example Mahler 9th:

Fans of Bernstein/Sony, Ancerl, Mitropoulos etc will be estatic with these releases since they embrace a similar daring extrovert style. I have heard Kondrashin 5,6,7,9 and they are so good I would place them in the top three of any performance in my recent Mahler list, 7th I believe is best I have ever heard. 1st was merely very good and would not replace any in my top three in highly competitive field, still need to audition 3,4.

I will keep you updated as more is uncovered, but extremely excited about these......I would love to hear a Kondrashin 2nd but none available!

I have heard Kondrashin 5,6,7,9 and they are so good I would place them in the top three of any performance in my recent Mahler list

Darkangel, I agree that Kondrashin's 5th is just killer! Amazing that such a kick-ass performance is so little-known. Do you find yourself bothered much by the "Russian-ness" of the horns? They occasionally bother me, but not too bad. The energy of the performance sweeps up my reservations.